Legislative Issues

Good Afternoon, Chairman Smith and Ranking Democrat Evans, I bid good day to you and your distinguished colleagues on this panel. My name is Rick Weidman, I currently serve as Director of Government Relations for Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA). On behalf VVA and our National President, Thomas H. Corey, I thank you for this opportunity to appear here today to present our views regarding several vital veterans issues.

As you know, VVA is strongly committed to the proposition that all programs to assist veterans, whether medical programs, readjustment counseling, education, or any other program must be measured against the litmus test of how much, how effectively and efficiently does it help veterans particularly disabled toward autonomy and independence including having a decent income.

For veterans of working age, that means obtaining and sustaining meaningful work at a decent living wage. That could mean securing a job working for someone else and moving into a career track, or it could mean becoming successfully self-employed, or becoming a successful small business owner. But it does mean meaningful, sustained work that results in a veteran or disabled veteran being able to earn a living. Frankly, it is the job of the VA and other veterans programs (e.g., at the Department of Labor and Small Business Administration) to help all American veterans become taxpayers again. If that is not being done in an effective and efficient manner then it reduces the utility of the literally billions in taxpayer dollars spent on education, health care and readjustment counseling programs, all of which are ostensibly designed to help veterans reach the point where they can obtain and sustain work.

Public Law 107-288

VVA commends you and this Committee for your leadership and tenacity in achieving passage of this bill. The bill left the House was a landmark piece of legislation. For the first time states would receive money based on how well they did their job of helping veterans, particularly disabled veterans, recently separated veterans, and veterans at risk to actually obtain and sustain employment. It would also reward individual outstanding Disabled Veteran Outreach Program (DVOPs) workers and Local Veteran Employment Representatives (LVERs) with cash awards and other special recognition awards.

Unfortunately, the aspect of rewards to the states doing the best job was eliminated in conference with the Senate. This means that the Department of Labor, Veterans Employment & Training Service has virtually no hold at all over the State Workforce Development Agencies the entities that actually employ the DVOPs and LVERs. When they do a good job, the USDOL cannot reward them. When the state work force development agencies do a poor job of placing veterans and disabled veterans into permanent jobs, they cannot be sanctioned. (Theoretically, DOL/VETS can declare a state out of compliance and recoup all of the federal monies for this program and other DOL programs from that Governor. As a practical matter, that is as likely to happen as for me ever again being as thin or in as good shape as I was when I was in the military thirty years ago. In other words, there are no meaningful sanctions.) If neither rewards nor sanctions are available to DOL/VETS, then there is no meaningful accountability system at all in regard to seeking better performance from the State Workforce Development Agencies.

The Department of Labor is working on defining “Veterans Priority” as it relates to all services provided within the Federal Employment and Training delivery system. VVA finds it somewhat disconcerting, if not outrageous, that the Assistant Secretary for Veterans Employment & Training (ASVET) was relegated to a secondary role in defining this benefit, i.e., the Secretary appointed someone outside of the Veterans Employment and Training Service delivery system as the lead person in developing the Department's interpretation of the law. That means that the Employment & Training Administration and the managers of the workforce development agencies and their concerns will predominate. Neither of these entities is known for any real concern for either the vital employment needs of veterans and disabled veterans, nor for being accountable in a meaningful way for their shortcomings. As a result, VVA is concerned that an effort is being made to dilute the intent of the law with regard to the issue of Veterans Priority.

During the 107^th Congress, VVA was against eliminating the statutory requirement that all LVERs/DVOPs be veterans. My own experience illustrates the case. I took over as the State Veterans Program Administrator of the New York State Department of Labor in 1987 and stayed until 1995. This was prior to the change in Title 38, United States Code provisions that required veteran status for LVERs, resulting in 67 percent of the LVERs in the State being non-veterans. Unfortunately, veterans’ preference laws in that state were regularly ignored and circumvented, even more than happens in federal government hiring and retention practices.

The reason for this phenomena was simple. New York's Civil Service Law gives extra points on examinations for veteran applicants but with regard to hiring under the "rule of three", a veteran would not receive any special consideration as would happen under federal civil service law. Thus, by numbers alone (veterans are outnumbered by almost 8 to 1 in any given catchments area) non-veterans had a better chance to get an LVER position than veterans. It is VVA’s understanding that this same situation exists in other states. It is also our understanding that one state has already tried to hire non-veterans into LVER and DVOP positions because of the change allowed under this new law. If you cannot find qualified veterans and disabled veterans to serve on your staff, do you deserve or are you competent to have a contract or grant to assist veterans, particularly disabled veterans, find work? If you won’t hire qualified veterans, particularly disabled veterans, how in the world are you going to convince private employers to hire them? VVA believes that leadership by example is the most effective kind of leadership.

With regard to performance incentives allowable under the law, VVA continues to be a strong supporters of a provision to reward states whose services to veterans are exceptional. This direct connection of cash with quality of performance by each state entity was at the heart of the original draft legislation that originated in this Committee. It was modified to include all who met a minimum standard of performance, which in VVA’s view would not be as effective, but would work. However, the final version of the law negated the original intent of these incentives. That intent was to give outstanding states some additional discretionary money to use in their veterans program as they saw useful. Without this hold over the state, DOL/VETS is left with no tool whatsoever to seek accountability.

VVA strongly recommends that the House take the lead in restoring the original language that was taken out in conference with the other body of Congress last year. The Jobs for Veterans Act will only offer real reform and improvement of the track record of placing veterans, particularly disabled veterans, when measurable performance is directly linked to money. VVA is grateful for your leadership on this issue in the past, but we must call on you again to pass legislation to correct the flaws in the bill that was finally enacted last year. All of us at VVA pledge our full support of these ongoing efforts to improve the effectiveness of job finding assistance for veterans.

Mr. Chairman, we are a mercantile nation. Our nation has been able to survive as a democratic republic only because we have a market economy that by and large rewards efficiency and quality performance. In other words, Americans value getting our bang for the buck in our private financial dealings. We should demand no less when it comes to how well our tax dollars are spent. That is what the Government Performance & Results Act (GPRA) is all about. VVA believes that programs performance under GPRA is a matter that this Committee and the entire Congress should focus more time and attention. However, GPRA as it currently stands begs the question of some sort of redress mechanism for the American people, through the Congress, to hold recipients of taxpayer dollars much more accountable. Only money linked to measurable goals will result in real improvement of performance.

The descriptive language under the law as finally enacted as Public Law 107-288 requires all incentives to be awarded solely to individuals, in almost all cases DVOPs and LVERs. VVA believes that this is a worthy effort, but only part of what needs to be done. It is the view of VVA that this provision standing alone is too restrictive and may result in favoritism or patronage at the state level. In addition to problems with state public employee unions, this individual performance does not encourage the managers of the “state partners” to make their whole system more effective in terms of actual job placement of disabled veterans, recently separated veterans, and veterans who are at significant risk.

A more sensible way to recognize and reward individual DVOPs and LVERs would be to establish a national award program, with non-DOL and non-state agency people making decisions as to who receives plaques or awards accompanied by a U. S. Savings Bonds. By establishing a national award that is based on actual placements (weighted heavily toward disabled veterans, veterans at risk, and recently separated veterans), the problems of ensuring the selection of line staff who have actually performed in an outstanding manner will be significantly diminished if not solved.

It is VVA's understanding that VETS is looking at several reorganization plans with regard to their field staff. It is VVA's hope that veterans’ organizations will be consulted as active participants, at least at the discussion level. The unintended consequence of the new law, based on spotty reports, is that the State Directors of VETS may have been inadvertently weakened by what DOL is doing in the name of implementing the law. Other reports and rumors indicate that the position of State Director of Veterans Employment & Training will be significantly downgraded or possibly even eliminated. We know that this was not the Congressional intent, so it is an issue that bears watching by this Committee.

VVA is very surprised that DOL has taken no apparent steps to create the President’s National Hire Veterans Committee and name members in order to move to an early start. Perhaps the most crucial problem in the effective operation of any efforts to assist veterans with employment in the last 30 years has been the lack of enough decent job listings. This newly created body has the potential to greatly assist in this effort at very little or no cost to the taxpayer. The lack of quick and decisive action on this front does lead one to wonder about the strength of real commitment to meaningful improvement of services to veterans at the DOL.

These are some of the major issues that are facing us right now in regard to improving veterans employment efforts. Much will have to wait until DOL develops and promulgates regulations for comment. VVA is given to understand that much of the work is done, and that DOL has consulted closely with state workforce development agencies and on some occasions with organized labor. DOL has not consulted in an open and candid manner with the organized veterans community. The last meeting with veterans service organizations was in early August. Although there was a meeting of the Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Veterans Employment and Training (ACVET) on October 17, 2002, that body is generally very structured, and apparently the details of the performance measures was not a topic.

We would note that DOL did publish Veterans Program Letter VPL 11-02 on September 16, 2002, that superceded the prototype performance standards that dated back to October 31, 1989. (See Appendix # 1) While updating the old prototypes is a good thing, very little in these standards translates into measurable or quantifiable objectives and measures. No DVOP or LVER staff person can successfully and effectively perform all of these duties in a given work year, even in the less-than-common cases where there is true support and encouragement of management at every level at the workforce development agency.

This is not a disparagement of the many fine persons who hold these positions. Indeed, some of the finest people I know are DVOPs and LVERs. There are many who do great jobs, going above and beyond to actually place veterans in decent jobs. I know many who work outside of the job and after hours on their own, using their own funds to help veterans. These people do extraordinary work, no matter how much they are punished. All of us at VVA marvel at their strength and their devotion to duty. What we need is a system that is as good as those DVOPs and LVERs who are getting the job done in their local area. Currently we do not have such a national system (e.g., in every state), despite the strong leadership of this Committee. We hope some additional legislation can be passed in the 108^th Congress to correct these problems.

Public Law 106-50 is not working well because most of this statute not only has not been implemented, but the Small Business Administration (SBA) and the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) heretofore have not even really tried to implement the law, much less make it work.

The results for FY 2001 are abysmal (see Appendix II), with the government wide average only reaching 0.25% or one twelfth (1/12) of the 3% minimum goal. The latest figures available are for the first three quarters of FY 2002 (See Appendix III), and are even worse at 0.10 or one thirtieth (1/30) of the goal of 3% of all prime contracts and 3% of all subcontracts. As noted in the above remarks, VVA believes in leadership by example. If one looks at the performance of VA and the Department of Defense (DOD), the ones who should lead the way in purchasing goods and services from service disabled veteran-owned businesses, the results are very disappointing.

One should take the numbers and percentages in these tables with some skepticism, as there has clearly not bee the due diligence in collecting accurate data as required in the law. Some of the agencies that looked to be dong well may in fact have reported “soft” numbers, based on efforts by veteran advocates to verify these statistics. We have also heard of instances where the agency may not have taken credit where they have done the right and legal thing toward disabled veteran business owners. We would certainly hope that this is the case with the Executive Office of the President.

The Task Force for Veterans Entrepreneurship (TFVE) has met monthly and pushed hard for proper implementation of P.L. 106-50 since enactment of this law on August 17, 1999. TFVE consists of many veterans’ organizations, private business owners, and other Americans committed to proper opportunities for disabled-veteran business owners. Please see attachment IV for a description of the Task Force origin and mission statement.

Twice the TFVE has prepared to go to court to force proper action. The first time was in the late summer/early fall of 2000, in order to compel that president’s administration to publish implementing regulations regarding procurement. The other time was to force the current president’s administration publish corrections to earlier regulations that were not in conformance with the law. In both instances, a major Washington law firm was engaged at considerable expense to TFVE participants, particularly Joe Forney, owner and CEO of VetSource, Inc., in California. Preparations were costly and time consuming. The briefs were prepared and ready to file and preparations being finalized for a press conference on the steps of the Federal Courthouse in Washington, D.C., when the regulations were finally published.

Some have suggested that we must be prepared to file suit to achieve implementation of every aspect of P.L. 106-50. Many veteran business owners and veterans’ advocates are angry and weary of the fight. Many disabled-veteran business owners have gone out of business trying to secure contracts pursuant to the provisions of this law. If that becomes necessary, then we will take such action. It is, however, absurd that veterans disabled in military service to country should have to take their government to court to force officials to obey the law.

VVA is very grateful to the leadership and members of this committee who worked closely with then Chairman James Talent (R-MO) to secure passage of P.L. 106-50. It is clear now that additional legislation will be needed. VVA is strongly committed to a speedy enactment of legislation that contains all of the provisions of the “Quick Strike” bill unanimously approved by the Task Force for Veterans Entrepreneurship. (See Attachment V)

We need a way for procurement officers and decision-makers to more easily reach disabled veteran owned businesses. This could be by means of creating a “disabled veterans competitive reserve” or by sole source authority or by another means, but this issue needs to be addressed in all of its facets. You will note that the proposed provisions attached in Appendix V would do much to clarify the law. Frankly, it is also extremely important that all of the provisions currently contained in Title 17 (SBA) also be contained in a new Chapter 44 of Title 38. That would accord this body more direct standing on these issues, and reinforce that this is a key program for veterans and disabled veterans as opposed to just one more minor add-on to the SBA laundry list.

VVA believes that it is particularly important to strengthen the National Veterans Business Development Corporation, giving them more time and federal funding to make up for the rocky start of the Corporation, and therefore favor extending federal funding for two additional years at the $4 million level. The Veterans Corporation also needs additional explicit authority to get VA, SBA, and other obstructionist bureaucracies to help establish a proper database of veteran owned and disabled-veteran-owned businesses. Whether the obstruction, extreme delays, less than fully truthful excuses, and broken deals in making progress on this front is just a result of bureaucratic sloth and turf guarding or a deliberate attempt to prevent success in this area is moot. The Veterans Corporation must be given additional explicit authority to accomplish this task.

The National Veterans Business Development Corporation has done much in the last 16 months, after a very poor start. They have instituted the “Fast Track” program in association with the Kauffman Foundation that is providing hands-on practical business training to veterans in the field. A number have already taken place, and it is our understanding that more than 100 such efforts will take place this year. The appraisal of this experience by veterans who have completed the course, including one who was already moderately successful in business, has been that it is the most valuable investment of time and money to help them succeed in business that they have yet found.

The corporation is making special arrangements with banks and other lending institutions to secure better access to private capital for veterans. They have succeeded with a few banks, and are moving to attempt to ensure coverage in every state in the nation. The Corporation is also working on means to help veterans sell goods and services through their “E-scout” program. While both of these efforts need much more development, they are on the right track and moving quickly.

There are very high expectations for the Veterans Corporation for many reasons. First of all, it is the only entity of its type ever created, and it was a creative result of the best thinking of strong veterans advocates in and out of the Congress. Secondly, the SBA track record in the past three years has been abysmal. Although most of the Senior Executive Service managers at SBA were rated as Outstanding or Superior in FY 2001 (none were rated as unsatisfactory or needs improvement), the agency continues its poor performance.

SBA has not even tried to implement most of P.L. 106-50, which calls for veterans and disabled veterans to be at the fore in every program or effort by SBA or funded by SBA. A look at SBA’s web site will reveal that there is no mention of veterans or disabled veterans anywhere except on the site for the Office of the Associate Administrator for Veterans Business Development. That Associate Administrator is by law supposed to report directly to the Administrator. All evidence indicated that there is no regular contact by the Associate Administrator with the current Administrator. One can only draw the conclusion that there has been a complete metamorphosis of the life- long effective veterans advocate who currently serves as Associate Administrator or that there is no opportunity for education of the current Administrator as to his special responsibilities toward veterans, particularly disabled veterans.

The current Administrator and his key people (other than the Associate Administrator for Veterans Business Development who occasionally attends TFVE meetings when specifically asked) have never made any effort to meet with the organized veterans community. The SBA has yet to name members of the Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Development, even though the law was enacted creating the committee almost three and one half years ago.

The only entity that has been really proactive in working with the veterans’ community is the Office of the Small Business Advocate, led by the Honorable Thomas Sullivan. Mr. Sullivan is the first Advocate since President Reagan’s first term to meet with veterans, and to our knowledge he is the first to initiate such a meeting. He and his people are indeed advocates, and been helpful to us in the effort to assist disabled and other veteran owned businesses. Some have suggested that this is because he reports, by law, directly to the President and not to the current Administrator and the current Chief of Staff.

The bottom line is that it has been more than four years since enactment of P.L. 106-50, and little has been done to implement the law. The procurement provisions are clearly ineffective and not taken seriously by contracting officers and contract decision- makers. The leadership from the very top has been either lacking or thwarted by recalcitrant and seemingly unaccountable senior bureaucrats. Additional changes to the law are needed to ensure that disabled-veteran business owners can get their foot in the door to compete for business.

Some have suggested that there may be enough statutory authority on the books already, if only the President would exert strong leadership on this effort. Frankly, we have come to the conclusion that SBA will not do anything unless pushed hard by the White House (and then monitored carefully for follow up). If the president, with troops about to be sent into hostile fire, were to say clearly through word and deed that the 3% goal and all other aspects of procurement law will be used to achieve meaningful results on his watch as president, it would happen in a matter of months. The veterans’ community has met with officials from everywhere we can think of to try to get traction on getting federal agencies to meet the requirements of this law. That includes representatives of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (twice), but we have made little headway. Therefore, we again look to the distinguished members of the Congress to give us the additional tools with which to push for meaningful change.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today to share our views on these issues that are so vital to the well being of America’s veterans. I will be happy to answer any questions.

Richard F. “Rick” Weidman serves as Director of Government Relations of Vietnam Veterans of America. As such, he is the primary spokesperson for VVA in Washington. He served as a 1-A-O Army Medical Corpsman during the Vietnam war, including service with Company C, 23^rd Med, AMERICAL Division, located in I Corps of Vietnam in 1969.

Mr. Weidman was part of the staff of VVA from 1979 to 1987, serving variously as Membership Director, Agency Liaison, and Director of Government Relations. He left VVA to serve in the Administration of New York Governor Mario M. Cuomo as statewide director of veterans employment & training (State Veterans Programs Administrator) for the New York State Department of Labor.

He has served as Consultant on Legislative Affairs to the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans (NCHV) and served at various times on the VA Readjustment Advisory Committee, the Secretary of Labor’s Advisory Committee on Veterans Employment & Training, the President’s Committee on Employment of Persons with Disabilities-Subcommittee on Disabled Veterans, Advisory Committee on Veterans’ Entrepreneurship at the Small Business Administration, and numerous other advocacy posts in veteran affairs. Among those other responsibilities, he is currently serving as Chairman of the Task Force for Veterans’ Entrepreneurship and Chairman, Task Force for Veterans Preference & Government Accountability, both of which are mechanisms for veterans’ organizations and other Americans committed to justice for veterans to coordinate efforts on these vital issues.

Mr. Weidman was an instructor and administrator at Johnson State College (Vermont) in the 1970s, where he also was active in community and veterans affairs. He attended Colgate University (B.A., (1967), and did graduate study at the University of Vermont.

The national organization Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) is a non-profit veterans membership organization registered as a 501(c)(19) with the Internal Revenue Service. VVA is also appropriately registered with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the Senate of Representatives in compliance with the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.

VVA is not currently in receipt of any federal grant or contract, other than the routine allocation of office space and associated resources in VA Regional Offices for outreach and direct services through its Veterans Benefits Program (Service Representatives). This is also true of the previous two fiscal years.

            Rick Weidman
            Director of Government Relations
            Vietnam Veterans of America
            (301) 585-4000, extension 127

Since 1989, there have been major changes in the employment service delivery system. In recognition of these changes, the ASVET saw the need for DVOP and LVER staff to have performance standards in place that are applicable within the new SWA service delivery system. To provide SWAs with updated guidance, VETS convened a workgroup that formulated recommendations for roles and responsibilities that States can use as the basis for setting DVOP and LVER performance standards in accordance with 38 U.S.C. 4104A.

IV. Development: In the Spring of 2002, VETS asked the National Association of Workforce Agencies (NASWA) for nominations of participants for this workgroup. The nominees consisted of a NASWA National Office representative, and two SWA administrators. In addition, two DVOP and two LVER local office staff were selected to participate in this workgroup. The remainder of this workgroup is comprised of one VETS National Office staff, four DVETs, a representative from the Employment and Training Administration, National Veterans= Training Institute staff, and contractor support.

The workgroup was given three objectives: 1) Develop and recommend to the ASVET new R&R=s that, in the evolving service delivery system, will provide SWAs, DVOP, and LVER staff the guidance and flexibility needed to function in an effective and efficient manner as they serve their veteran clients; 2) Develop and recommend performance measures for program staff that measure the functional responsibilities outlined in the new prototype performance standards. These measures are referred to as grant-based performance measures; 3) Ensure that the recommended R&R=s and performance measures are applicable under current provisions of Title 38 and any pending legislation introduced in the 107^th or 108^th Congress.

V. Concept: During the development of the R&R=s, the overriding consideration was to provide SWA administrators, DVOP and LVER staff with the guidance and flexibility needed to operate program(s) services in an effective and efficient manner in order to best serve their veteran clients. The R&R=s provide the States with a framework that includes two key elements: 1) required core roles for DVOP and LVER staff, and 2) listings of examples of responsibilities that are appropriate for each of the required roles. States have the flexibility to use any or all of the suggested responsibilities, and or add other appropriate responsibilities. This dual structure is intended to provide States with the opportunity to tailor DVOP and LVER performance responsibilities to reflect their service delivery environment. One significant restriction is that the roles and responsibilities assigned to DVOP and LVER staff must be within the parameters given for the particular program in Title 38 U.S.C.

VI. Implementation: States can begin implementation of the new R&R=s at any time. It is expected that States will have DVOP and LVER performance standards based on the R&R=s in place by the beginning of Program Year (PY) 2003, July 1, 2003. RAVETs, DVETs, and VETS National Office will be available to provide technical assistance as needed.

VIII. Grant-Based Measures: The workgroup will continue refining their recommendations on the proposed grant-based measures. The measures are planned to provide a means of linking the R&R=s to the employment outcomes of individuals served by DVOP and LVER staff. Once the final recommendations are made, the proposed grant-based measures will be shared with stakeholders for comment via a Federal Register Notice or via VPL. It is expected that the grant-based measures will be approved and be implemented with the start of PY 2003.

A. SWA administrators are to have new DVOP/LVER performance standards in place prior to the beginning of PY 2003,

B. In developing these standards, the SWA=s shall take into consideration the enclosed Roles & Responsibilities, as well as the duties and functions specified in section 4103A(b), and section 4104(b)(1) through (12) of Chapter 41, Title 38 U.S.C. DVETs shall upon the request of the SWA, provide appropriate assistance in the development of the performance standards,

C. SWA=s shall submit to the DVET, their proposed standards for comment. DVETs will within 30 days from receipt of proposed standards, provide comments on the proposed standards to both the SWA administrator, and to their RAVET,

4. RAVETs will compile a listing of States that have implemented the new performance standards, and will submit the list to the Chicago Regional Lead Center prior to July 1, 2003.

X. Inquiries: State agency questions should direct their inquires to their DVET. Any questions that cannot be answered by the DVET should be directed through their RAVET to Miguel A. Hernandez at (202) 693-4708.

	Veteran-Owned Small Business			Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business
	Actions	($000)	(%)	Actions	($000)	(%)
TOTAL FEDERAL	33,211	528,607	0.37	2,749	141,100	0.10
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT	0	0	0.00	0	0	0.00
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE	317	11,116	0.60	173	3,485	0.19
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE	133	2,999	0.27	19	189	0.02
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE	1,976	278,469	0.32	372	66,779	0.08
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION	7	3,079	0.50	0	0	0.00
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY	89	7,019	0.05	7	485	0.00
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES	306	24,096	0.89	11	3,265	0.12
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT	31	741	0.11	5	1,180	0.18
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE	130	3,930	0.14	8	1,690	0.06
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR	16	5,667	0.57	0	0	0.00
DEPARTMENT OF STATE	57	3,479	0.46	29	3,955	0.52

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR	145	11,840	1.05	28	1,814	0.16
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY	214	19,505	1.01	19	11,463	0.59
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION	155	19,134	1.15	68	9,126	0.55
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS	28,398	67,873	1.96	1,808	17,726	0.51
AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT	0	0	0.00	0	0	0.00
AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION	0	0	0.00	0	0	0.00
BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS	9	1,237	3.08	0	0	0.00
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION	0	0	0.00	0	0	0.00
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION	1	4	0.07	1	445	7.64
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY	4	249	0.04	0	0	0.00
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION	4	30	0.08	0	0	0.00

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION	0	0	0.00	0	0	0.00
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY	22	1,806	1.00	0	0	0.00
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION	0	0	0.00	0	0	0.00
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION	0	0	0.00	0	0	0.00
FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICE	0	0	0.00	0	0	0.00
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION	3	179	1.24	1	18	0.12
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION	856	53,570	0.60	108	5,338	0.06
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION	1	25	0.44	0	0	0.00
J. F. KENNEDY CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS	2	9	0.21	0	0	0.00
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION	157	9,012	0.09	21	11,887	0.12
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION	0	0	0.00	0	0	0.00

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS	1	4	0.46	2	214	24.43
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES	0	0	0.00	0	0	0.00
NATIONAL GALLERY OF ART	0	0	0.00	0	0	0.00
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD	0	0	0.00	0	0	0.00
NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD	0	0	0.00	0	0	0.00
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION	2	7	0.01	1	5	0.01
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD	0	0	0.00	0	0	0.00
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION	6	340	0.51	3	31	0.05
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT	7	80	0.03	0	0	0.00
RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD	26	178	3.17	19	361	6.43
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION	0	0	0.00	0	0	0.00

SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM	1	5	0.86	0	0	0.00
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION	5	307	1.02	0	0	0.00
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION	0	0	0.00	0	0	0.00
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION	129	2,618	0.71	46	1,644	0.45
UNITED STATES SOLDIERS AND AIRMENS HOME	1	0	0.00	0	0	0.00
UNITED STATES TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY	0	0	0.00	0	0	0.00


4/16/02		FEDERAL PROCUREMENT DATA SYSTEM
	SUMMARY OF ACTIONS AND DOLLARS ON SF-279 AND SF-281
FISCAL YEAR 2001

				VOSB	VOSB		ALL
AGENCY NAME	DV ACTS	DV $$(000)	DV %	ACTS	$$(000)	VOSB %	ACTIONS	ALL $$(000)

TOTALS	9142	554167	0.25	88833	558199	0.25	11254887	219573037
DEFENSE	2786	484857	0.34	2498	155463	0.11	7268698	142764938
STATE	156	17568	1.17	148	42710	2.84	129001	1501463
VETERANS AFFAIRS	5849	12961	0.22	83503	122607	2.1	2410488	5838519
TREASURY	58	10836	0.44	320	21276	0.85	40878	2489479
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES	38	6315	0.13	261	44212	0.91	226711	4840797
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION	98	5405	0.05	586	54172	0.51	169740	10656575
TRANSPORTATION	19	4032	0.16	168	28326	1.14	46282	2489626
AGRICULTURE	34	3702	0.1	158	10054	0.26	138669	3811840
ENERGY	12	1347	0.01	155	10423	0.06	16448	18598697
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION	12	1249	0.23	66	11461	2.13	184926	538292
COMMERCE	13	1060	0.09	122	457	0.04	32469	1188019
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT	2	881	0.11	8	1785	0.22	5970	815424
KENNEDY CENTER	3	638	3.64	3	28	0.16	351	17534
JUSTICE	5	610	0.01	150	9712	0.2	372472	4837722
INTERIOR	11	571	0.03	134	13676	0.64	57530	2145628
RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD	29	507	4.13	43	586	4.77	1497	12288
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY	2	426	5.06	7	118	1.4	1801	8419
PEACE CORPS	2	390	2.36	0	0	0	1836	16496
EDUCATION	1	246	0.03	13	1206	0.13	7998	926071
NATL AERONAUTICS & SPACE ADMIN	2	178	0	59	16104	0.14	37067	11232435
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY	1	119	0.26	0	0	0	6465	46513
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION	2	119	0.8	5	795	5.34	933	14892
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION	1	75	0.1	13	527	0.74	1219	71511
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT	1	51	0.02	1	23	0.01	7432	284658
LABOR	3	11	0	18	6840	0.49	14664	1396604
SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM	1	10	0.91	6	97	8.79	271	1103
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION	1	3	0	4	24	0.04	1069	62438
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT	0	0	0	4	146	0.44	3714	33204
AGENCY FOR INTL DEVELOPMENT	0	0	0	0	0	0	4346	542587
AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS	0	0	0	0	0	0	1958	229
BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERN	0	0	0	47	1080	1.97	7369	54880
COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS	0	0	0	0	0	0	41	45
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING	0	0	0	0	0	0	890	13164
CORP FOR NATL & COMMUNITY SERVICE	0	0	0	0	0	0	236	2375
DEF NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY	0	0	0	0	0	0	43	350
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY	0	0	0	295	535	0.05	17208	1105635
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS	0	0	0	0	0	0	923	17409
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION	0	0	0	0	0	0	978	1591
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MGMT AGENCY	0	0	0	26	3255	1.06	1912	308427
FEDERAL ENERGY REG COMMISSION	0	0	0	0	0	0	310	21846
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION	0	0	0	0	0	0	136	573
FED MEDIATION & CONCILIATION	0	0	0	0	0	0	212	1289
FED MINE SAFETY & HEALTH REVIEW	0	0	0	0	0	0	180	242
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION	0	0	0	9	55	1.41	249	3894
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION	0	0	0	0	0	0	624	1349
NATL ARCHIVES & RECORDS ADMIN	0	0	0	1	122	0.26	2408	46116
NATL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS	0	0	0	0	0	0	91	895
NATL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES	0	0	0	0	0	0	1290	1458
NATIONAL GALLERY OF ART	0	0	0	0	0	0	1492	16443
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD	0	0	0	0	0	0	973	9662
NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD	0	0	0	0	0	0	328	2873
NATL TRANS SAFETY BOARD	0	0	0	0	0	0	127	827
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION	0	0	0	1	65	0.08	1383	78395
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HLTH REV	0	0	0	0	0	0	19	58
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE	0	0	0	0	0	0	1130	28784
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION	0	0	0	0	0	0	19854	102853
US HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM	0	0	0	0	0	0	790	4160
US SOLDIERS AND AIRMENS HOME	0	0	0	1	259	3.8	411	6809
US TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY	0	0	0	0	0	0	377	556634